Arnold Hughes Ennor 1912-1977

From relatively humble beginnings Hugh Ennor
accepted those opportunities that came his way to develop a love
for biochemistry and the academic way of life. During a life-long
career in the world of learning he became one of Australia's outstanding
men of science. To those who knew him well, he will probably be
remembered best for the part he played in the development of the
John Curtin School of Medical Research at the Australian National
University. The opportunities to use to the full his qualities
as a leader came during the most active years of his life, for
he was appointed to the Foundation Chair of Biochemistry in the
John Curtin School of the newly established Australian National
University at the age of 35. At this time, too, only three years
after the end of World War II, research in the natural sciences
was entering the most active era in its history. Scientists and
technologists had achieved so much during the six years of war;
the people of the world were now ready to support them in seeking
solutions to the many problems that beset a society during times
of peace. This was especially so in the field of medical research
and in Australia where, before the war, research had been but
little encouraged. In the last decade of his life, however, Ennor
left the ivory towers of the university to devote himself to public
administration. These were the hardest years in a long career
dedicated to science.

Arnold Hughes (Hugh) Ennor was born on 10 October 1912 at Gardenvale,
a suburb of Melbourne. His father, Arnold Martin Ennor, was a
cabinetmaker in Bendigo, but moved to Melbourne as manager of
the Caulfield Timber Company. His mother was Charlotte van de
Leur Hughes and Ennor took both parents' names when he was christened
Arnold Hughes by the Bishop of Bendigo in Bendigo.

He went to school at O'Neil College in Melbourne where he was
usually top of his class. After leaving school in 1927 at the
age of 15 he started pupil teaching but did not like it. His father
then got him a position in a bank, but in 1929 he was appointed
as a junior laboratory assistant at the Baker Medical Research
Institute. This institute had been established in 1926, with Dr W. J. Penfold,
a bacteriologist of the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories, as its
first director. At the same time the recently formed biochemical
laboratory of the Alfred Hospital, headed by Dr A. B. Corkill,
was absorbed into the Baker Institute.

It was Corkill who early recognized that Ennor had considerable
talent and who encouraged him to continue with his studies, firstly
at the Melbourne Technical College and then at the University
of Melbourne, where he matriculated as a student in the Faculty
of Science on 8 March 1934. Together with others who had studied
at the 'Tech', Ennor managed the elementary manipulations given
in the practical classes with an effortlessness that was enviable
to those who had come straight from school. Being somewhat older
than the normal undergraduate he had a maturity, mien, and drive
that marked him out from his peers at this stage. Dr J. W. Legge,
who was in the same year, tells the following story to illustrate
this:

With hindsight from the five years I spent with Lemberg at the
Royal North Shore Hospital, I now recognize that the teaching
of spectroscopy in elementary biochemistry in those days left
much to be desired. Hugh had recognized this, had learned how
the various derivatives of the haem compounds had been prepared,
and in various tests had developed a technique worthy of Fresenius,
which enabled him to identify pigments without using the spectroscope.
Some were alkaline, some in acid solutions, some in alcoholic
solutions and some reduced with ammonium hydrosulphide. He was
thus able to identify them all by the use of litmus paper and
smell without recourse to the hand spectroscope and the small
medicine bottles which we were expected to use in order to identify
the pigments. As one would expect, this was a foolproof method
when compared with that taught in the practical class.

In 1937 Ennor obtained second class honours in Chemistry 3 and
in Physiology 2, sharing the Exhibition with J. W. Legge, and
he was admitted to the degree of bachelor of science on 9 April
1938. He then proceeded to the course for the degree of master
of science in the school of biochemistry; in March 1939 he was
awarded first class honours, again sharing the Exhibition, and
was admitted to this degree on 4 September 1939. He later enrolled
for the degree of doctor of science and in November 1943 his thesis
consisting of papers on biochemistry was accepted by the examiners
and he was admitted to this degree on 21 December 1943.

During his early postgraduate years, from 1938 to 1943, Ennor
worked at the Baker Institute as a junior fellow of the National
Health and Medical Research Council. At this time Corkill was
director of the Institute and Ennor worked in close association
with him. Corkill, a medical graduate of the University of Melbourne,
as well as being in charge of the biochemistry laboratory was
for a time physician-in-charge of the Diabetic Clinic established
in the Alfred Hospital in 1926. Insulin had only recently, in
1922, been prepared by Banting and Best, an event which led to
an enormous amount of work on carbohydrate metabolism, the field
in which Corkill became interested. He went to England in 1929
and again in the early thirties to work at the National Institute
for Medical Research with Dr H. H. (later Sir Henry) Dale on carbohydrate
metabolism in muscle and liver. He returned from his second visit
in late 1934, by which time Ennor was a science undergraduate
at the University of Melbourne. In 1937, when Ennor graduated
as a bachelor of science, Corkill was acting director of the Baker
Institute and was soon to be appointed director, in 1938.

It was at this time that Corkill was gathering a group to work
in the general field of carbohydrate metabolism. Charlotte Anderson
studied the influence of a principle obtained from the anterior
pituitary gland on carbohydrate metabolism in liver and skeletal
muscle. Ennor, in 1938, joined in this work, studying the enzyme
choline-esterase in myasthenia gravis and the role of the tripeptide,
glutathione, in muscle metabolism. Later, Anderson and Ennor combined
their techniques to investigate the step in carbohydrate metabolism
in which methyl glyoxal is converted into lactic acid by the enzyme
glyoxalase. They were able to show that their anterior pituitary
extracts administered to animals for three days reduced by as
much as 50 per cent the amount of reduced glutathione, which is
a specific activator of glyoxalase, in the liver preparation made
from these animals. In this way they demonstrated a chemical link
between the anterior pituitary principle and carbohydrate metabolism.

The discovery by others that a diabetic state could be induced
in animals by the injection of certain extracts made from the
anterior pituitary gland led Corkill's group to embark on investigations
of the diabetogenic substance of the anterior pituitary on carbohydrate
metabolism in the liver; they also studied the glucose-phosphate
metabolic pathways in the liver and the metabolism of fatty livers.

The events of World War II and his involvement in research projects
for the Defence Department made it more and more difficult for
Corkill to continue his fundamental work in carbohydrate metabolism.
In 1942 his services were sought by the Chemical Warfare Department,
and in 1943 Ennor resigned from his NHMRC fellowship at the request
of Dr C. H. Kellaway
to join a research unit, headed by Colonel F. S. Gorrill of the
British Army, to study certain aspects of chemical warfare in
the tropics of north Queensland. This work was mainly carried
out during the hot wet summer months. One of his colleagues in
this unit writes of these times:

Hugh had enough drive, energy, enthusiasm, and organizing capacity
to serve two ordinary people, and behind these attributes was
a first-rate brain. He was an extrovert to end all extroverts.
His weapon was the bludgeon rather than the rapier, so ably wielded
by Jack Legge, and the pair of them formed a team which was irresistible
when it set out to persuade people to do things that they didn't
want to do. Hugh's superabundant energy overflowed into innumerable
games of poker in the Mess, and I remember very vividly how, when
the station was immobilized owing to floods, Hugh suggested that
we should build a tennis court while we were waiting. The temperature
at the time was 97°F and the relative humidity 88.

When the war ended Ennor returned to his fellowship at the Baker
Institute. By this time Dr C. H. Kellaway, who had been director
of the Walter and Eliza Hall Institute, had accepted the position
of Director of Research at the Wellcome Foundation in London and
moved there in 1944. He was well aware of Ennor's ability as a
biochemist and so the Wellcome Trustees offered him a fellowship
to work in England for two years. Ennor proceeded to Oxford in
1946 to work in the Department of Biochemistry under Professor
(later Sir Rudolph) Peters. Here he worked with Dr Lloyd Stocken
on the distribution of acid-soluble phosphates in the fatty liver,
on the estimation of creatine and the preparation of sodium phosphocreatine.
It was during this time that his wife was confined to hospital
for a considerable time necessitating the return of his two young
children by ship to Australia to be cared for by relatives. Despite
these domestic worries, Ennor remained cheerful and as energetic
in the laboratory as ever, He was readily able to cope with difficulties
which would have had a far greater effect on most individuals.

Ennor returned to Melbourne in 1948 as Senior Biochemist at the
Commonwealth Serum Laboratories, but was soon appointed to the
Foundation Chair of Biochemistry in the John Curtin School of
Medical Research at the Australian National University. This was
the first professorial appointment in the university where Ennor
was to remain for nearly 20 years.

The facilities available for research in the John Curtin School
gave Ennor the opportunity to develop his interests in biochemistry
in a department devoted entirely to research. He ultimately built
up an excellent department consisting of several groups of research
workers. In his own group he formed a very close association with
Dr H. Rosenberg and much of the work in his own laboratory was
done in collaboration with Rosenberg, who joined him in January
1951.

During his tenure as professor of biochemistry in the John Curtin
School from 1948 to 1967 and head of the department until 1965,
Ennor's research was concerned with compounds containing phosphorus.
The high-energy phosphates -in those days, adenosine di- and triphosphate
(ADP and ATP) and phosphocreatine (PC)-had caught his interest
during his earlier work on the metabolism of CC14-produced fatty
livers, and he found some changes in the levels of high-energy
phosphate in these livers.

In 1951 an intensive study began on the distribution and turnover
of ATP phosphorus and phosphocreatine phosphorus in mammalian
liver and muscle. It was virtually virgin ground. Ennor's laboratory
was one of the first to use the isotopes *32Pand *24Na in the
early fifties in Australia, and in these years the experimental
background was laid down, with the use of isotopes, for this work.
Once the procedures were worked out, the turnover rates of the
various phosphates were determined and the chain of phosphate
incorporation into them was followed through.

At this stage the interaction of ATP and PC became the central
point of the work and the little-known enzyme creatine phosphokinase
of muscle was investigated in detail. A series of papers established
the important properties of this enzyme and laid the ground for
further work. In a natural progression from this study, the work
shifted to other, non-vertebrate, phosphagens and their kinases.
An important methodological breakthrough at this stage was the
development of a new method for the estimation of arginine, which
worked equally well with all other guanidines and proved invaluable
in subsequent work. It is now the standard method used everywhere.

In the period that followed Ennor and Rosenberg isolated in the
pure state a no. of invertebrate phosphagens and their precursors.
Improved methods and application of modern separation techniques
yielded crystalline phosphoarginine, the phosphagen of crustacea
and other marine invertebrates and finally, in 1958, copious quantities
of lombricine-the base of the earthworm phosphagen. These were
the most exciting times and the most happy ones for Ennor. The
review on phosphagen which he wrote about that time with Dr I.
F. Morrison remained a definitive work for many years.

Lombricine is a phospho-diester of guanidoethanol and serine:

H2N-C(:NH)-NH-CH2-O-PO(OH)-O-CH2-CH(NH2)-COOH,

and its precursor, serine ethanolamine phospho-diester (SEP):

H2N-CH2-CH2-O-PO(OH)-O-CH2-CH(NH2)-COOH

was known to occur in amphibians. To their surprise and delight,
the serine moiety in the lombricine molecule turned out to be
d-serine, the first time a d-amino acid was shown
to occur in a higher animal. The precursor, SEP, in the worm turned
out to be d-SEP, which that of the amphibian was l-SEP.
Free d-serine was also found in the earthworm.

The biochemistry of lombricine was further pursued and its biosynthesis
elucidated. Ennor and Rosenberg finally turned to the phosphagen
itself, phospho-lombricine. Its isolation was preceded by a cataclysmic
three days of earthworm collection which will be remembered by
an entire generation of Canberra schoolchildren of the early sixties.
The enzyme lombricine phospho-kinase was then studied in detail
and at the same time a study in breadth was undertaken of the
distribution of serine ethanolamine phospho-diester, which occurred
in the d-form only in the earthworm, but in the l-form
in all lower vertebrates, as discovered in a wide survey carried
out in the early sixties. The distribution of the l-compound
was curiously restricted to fishes, birds, reptiles, and amphibians.
Its function is a mystery to this day. In the course of this survey
another strange observation was made in the lowest subphylum of
the four, the fishes. Another related compound, l-threonine-ethanolamine
phospho-diester was found alongside the serine diester. What's
more, in a curious evolutionary twist, the relative amounts of
the two varied from species to species, generally the threonine
compound predominating in the most primitive, the serine one in
the most developed ones.

Studies were then made to elucidate the metabolism, biosynthesis,
and breakdown of these curious compounds and the specific enzymes
involved in the reactions. It was at this stage, in 1965, that
Ennor became more involved in university administration, and resigned
from his position as head of the department of biochemistry.

The quality of Ennor's work and the standards set were alwayshigh. Claims for newly discovered compounds were made only after
identification was completely positive and confirmed by synthesis.
All the enzymic work was equally of high standard. Dr Rosenberg
writes:

Ennor was happiest when working at the bench, and during those
hours he was full of vigour, excellent wit, and boundless energy.
He was, in those days, a delightful companion, though no one even
in the closest circle in the department called him Hugh.

Ennor was generous to people in his department. He took an interest
in everyone's work but left us free to do whatever we wanted.
His own group was never expanded at anyone's expense-we all got
a fair share of the department's resources and he offered nothing
but encouragement. Ennor was in those laboratory days a delightful
companion-warm, friendly, generous. I was always impressed that
irrespective of what company he was in, and it was often distinguished,
he would come over and speak to anyone from his department, even
the newest PhD student. It is true that no one called him Hugh.
But those days were slightly different and it wasn't necessary
to use first names on every occasion. He talked to everyone as
an equal which is a good substitute for first name familiarity.
He was meticulous in scholarly writing of papers and prided himself
that no paper leaving the department was sloppily written. To
this end he read every paper leaving the department very thoroughly
and few were sent out without quite major improvements by him.
He must have spent an enormous time on this task.

Ennor's love of biochemistry was obvious to all who knew him during
the years he spent at the bench. He played a significant role
in the establishment of the Australian Biochemical Society and
was its president from 1960 to 1962. His research also took him
to many biochemical laboratories overseas where he was well known
by many of the leading biochemists of the world and for a time
he was a member of the International Committee for Biochemistry.
At the same time, many distinguished overseas biochemists visited
his laboratory, some as visiting fellows, others as visitors for
a shorter time. Among these, Sir Rudolph Peters writes:

I had a high regard for him, such a straight and downright character
and always determined to do his best for whatever job he took
on.

And Professor Baird Hastings writes:

The news of Hugh Ennor's death came as a great shock to me and
Mrs Hastings. He was so vigorous and entered into any activity
that he undertook with such enthusiasm that one thought of him
as overcoming mortal ailments. I remember his vigour in research,
particularly as it pertained to high-energy phosphates, culminating
in his devising a phosphate method with Lloyd Stocken at Oxford
that was an improvement on the popular Fiske and Subarrow one.

Whereas Ennor devoted much of his energy to research and to the
administration of his own department, he was destined to play
a very active role in the development of the John Curtin School
and of the Australian National University. This university had
been established by Act of Parliament in August 1946 with the
specific provision that 'The research schools shall include a
research school in relation to medical science to be known as
The John Curtin School of Medical Research'. This Act came into
operation in February 1947. Sir Howard (later Lord) Florey,
Professor of Pathology and head of the Sir William Dunn School
of Pathology in Oxford, had earlier advised the government on
the establishment of the JCSMR and in 1947 the university negotiated
with him concerning his possible acceptance of the directorship
of the school. Although Florey declined to come to Australia in
this capacity immediately, he agreed to act as adviser to the
university in all matters concerning the John Curtin School. As
Fenner, in his Victor
Coppleson Memorial Lecture, said:

In essence he (Florey) functioned as a non-resident director,
and was responsible for the way in which the school developed
during the first decade of its existence. During this period (1947-1957)
he visited Australia almost every year.

Ennor's appointment to the chair of biochemistry in 1948 was soon
to be followed by that of Albert
to the chair of medical chemistry in January 1949, Fenner to the
chair of microbiology in July 1949, and Eccles
to the chair of physiology in 1951. However, since there were
no laboratories in Canberra, these professors were accommodated
in various laboratories in Australia and overseas-Ennor at the
Commonwealth Serum Laboratories and Fenner at the Walter and Eliza
Hall Institute in Melbourne, Albert at the Wellcome institution
in London and Eccles in the Medical School in Dunedin.

During these early years, a plan for the building of JCSMR was
one of the main concerns of Florey and of the four widely scattered
professors. It became clear that a permanent building in Canberra
would take a considerable time to plan and build, so in 1952 the
council of the university authorized the building of temporary
laboratories on the campus; they were completed by the end of
that year and enabled three of the four professors to be together
in Canberra, Albert remaining in London. It then became convenient
for one of the professors in Canberra to look after administrative
matters locally and communicate with Florey in Oxford. Accordingly,
Ennor was appointed dean of the school in 1952, a position to
which he devoted a great deal of his enormous energy and drive
in order to get the building under way and completed. In 1957
the building was completed and it was occupied in the latter part
of that year. During this first decade of the school's development
Ennor and Florey worked in close harmony. The completion of the
building was undoubtedly a considerable achievement for them both,
as well as for others. Florey could at last see many years of
planning coming to fruition, an event that would not have occurred
so smoothly had it not been for Ennor's administrative ability
on the local scene.

The year 1957, however, was to be the end of the decade in which
Florey was to guide the destinies of JCSMR. As the building neared
completion, the university renewed negotiations with Florey to
see whether he would come to Canberra as director of the JCSMR
and professor of experimental pathology. Florey suggested an appointment
as temporary director for one year and that he should come on
that basis with several colleagues in the hope that conditions
would be such that all would wish to stay. This plan did not have
the support of university council and Ennor went to Oxford on
behalf of council to discuss the matter with Florey. Ennor's mission,
however, failed, with Florey deciding finally not to come to Australia
as director of JCSMR. E. P. Abraham, in writing Florey's obituary
for the Royal Society, comments:

Although Hugh Ennor was sent as an emissary to Oxford in March
1957, his visit only served to sharpen the division of opinion
and to finalize the break. It is idle now to speculate on how
things would have turned out if Florey had gone to Canberra on
a temporary basis, but some such arrangement might have been made
had it not been for a clash of personalities.

No doubt many factors were taken into consideration by Florey
before he made his final decision. As Abraham stated:

One, to which he (Florey) himself attributed much importance,
was that a sufficient no. of his colleagues did not feel able
to go with him to Canberra. He remarked that he had reached a
time of life (he was 58 at the time) when he found it difficult
to contemplate the formation of a group of entirely new collaborators
and that he had no wish to find himself becoming merely an administrator
or figurehead. Other factors were a growing apprehension about
the administrative organization of the university and about the
provision of sufficient money for the School of Medical Research
to fulfil the role he had envisaged for it.

To what extent any clash of personalities affected Florey's decision
is difficult to assess. Both Ennor and Florey were very plain-speaking,
forthright men; neither suffered fools gladly but each understood
and had considerable respect for the other. Both were down-to-earth
practical men, laboratory men, happiest when working at the bench.
Both, however, were destined to play leading roles in administration
in science. Ennor in his position as dean was always loyal to
Florey. He was never devious, never other than straightforward.
He reacted quickly, but listened to arguments and changed his
mind readily.

Indeed, one could see him changing in full flight, as it were,
as his own exposition of a point developed or discussion opened
up new avenues of thought.

Although Florey was no longer to be adviser to the university
on JCSMR, he continued his deep interest in the school. In March
1958 he opened the JCSMR building and from 1964 until his death
in 1968 when he was chancellor of the university, he made several
visits to Canberra and was obviously delighted with the development
of JCSMR. All those who attended the dinner in the Scarth Room
of University House on 29 August 1966 to farewell Eccles on his
departure for the United States, understand how happy Florey was
with the stature and reputation attained by JCSMR in the world
of medical research. Florey had planned to come to Canberra to
work in the school when he retired as provost of Queens, but his
death in February 1968, just before he was due to retire, ended
what might have been a very pleasant period of his life.

When Florey finally decided not to accept the directorship of
JCSMR, Ennor was appointed head of the school. There is no doubt
that Ennor was genuinely disappointed with Florey's decision for
he was well aware of the difficulties and the responsibilities
of this position at an important stage of the university's development.
He realized that he was not of the stature of Florey as a scientist
and he insisted that he should continue to use the term dean instead
of director. Nevertheless, he had an immense determination to
maintain the high standards of research in JCSMR that Florey had
envisaged and demanded. For the next ten years, until his resignation
in 1967, Ennor remained head of JCSMR. This was a time of great
expansion, not only for JCSMR but also for the university. During
this time Ennor had a lot to do with the fine detail of the development
of JCSMR, although the broad planning had already been set before
his influence was at its height. It fell to him to establish the
school's stature within the university. To him much credit must
go for JCSMR's reputation for modesty in demands for growth and
for fair and reasonable dealing in the competition for resources.
Four new chairs were filled, experimental pathology in 1958, physical
biochemistry in 1959, genetics in 1964 and clinical science in
1966; two new units were also established, biological inorganic
chemistry and electron microscopy. The academic staff increased
from 31 to 67 and the no. of PhD students from 10 to 65 and,
during this time, in 1963, Eccles was awarded the Nobel Prize
for Physiology and Medicine. With the growth of the university,
especially after the amalgamation with the Canberra University
College in 1960, a position of deputy vice-chancellor was created
to which Ennor was appointed for two years in 1964. He remained
head of JCSMR and professor of biochemistry, but in 1965 resigned
from the headship of the department of biochemistry.

In his concept of a research school Florey envisaged the research
workers devoting the whole of their time to research under the
best laboratory facilities possible. He felt that they should
not be distracted or waste their time on administrative matters.
In such a school the research should be 'superlatively good',
at least equal to that in the leading laboratories of the world.
The administration of the school was to be left largely to the
director and the heads of departments who would form a school
committee, and to a business manager and a technical manager responsible
to the director. Members of the sub-professorial staff had a voice
only at informal departmental meetings, but of course could as
individuals freely discuss any matter with the director.

Ennor strongly endorsed this type of school management which worked
well during the initial period of rapid expansion. With the growth
of the academic staff, however, there arose an increasing demand
for the formation of a faculty and Faculty Board to give all members
of the academic staff a voice in the government of the school.
Ennor was well aware of the importance above all else of the quality
of research in determining the stature of the school on the international
scene. He was also well aware of the enormous amount of time that
can be wasted in meetings. He believed that members of the academic
staff had access to whatever facilities they wished to carry out
their research. For a time, therefore, he adhered to the original
form of government and he resisted any move to form a more 'democratic'
structure of government in the school. Ultimately, as an interim
measure, two members of the sub-professorial staff were added
to the school committee and meetings of the entire academic staff
were held periodically. At this time, however, the climate was
changing in all universities and it became difficult to resist
the tide of opinion. In 1966, when Ennor was deputy vice-chancellor,
a committee was set up by the vice-chancellor to report on the
structure of JCSMR government; in 1967 a faculty-Faculty Board
structure was recommended and established.

It has long been argued that a school for medical research completely
divorced from the clinic suffers a considerable disadvantage.
Florey was certainly a laboratory man, but he was very conscious
of the necessity to exploit the results of basic medical research
for the benefit of mankind. In his address at the opening of JCSMR
in 1958 he said;

There are, I am sure, few who would now dispute that new knowledge
is coming principally from those engaged either in what are called
fundamental sciences of medicine or from those who have been trained
thoroughly in experimental methods in these sciences and have
then gone with the outlook so obtained to work in the clinic...I
hope that one of the major functions of this institution will
be to train future clinicians in experimental methods and ways
of thought as well as to train laboratory workers.

With the rapid development of the basic medical sciences after
he became head of the John Curtin School, Ennor began to realize
the deep gap between the scientists in JCSMR and the practising
clinicians. Even though some medical graduates were being trained
in the experimental method and were returning to the clinic, as
Florey had hoped, the research workers in the school had relatively
little contact with medical problems as they existed in the clinic.
Ennor became aware of the importance in Canberra of a teaching
medical school as part of the Australian National University to
complement the JCSMR. With the rapid growth of Canberra in the
sixties, the establishment of a viable undergraduate medical school
attached to the university became a possibility. With Ennor's
support the university set up a committee under his chairmanship
to report on the possible establishment of an undergraduate medical
school. The report, produced in 1965, served as a basis for further
studies and reports on the type of medical school best suited
for the community and the time of its commencement. These studies
were subsequently made, but for various reasons, at the time of
his death in October 1977, the decision to establish an undergraduate
medical school in Canberra was still in abeyance.

Although the establishment of an undergraduate medical school
attached to the Australian National University was to become a
long drawn-out issue, there were other ways in which JCSMR could
attain a closer link with clinical medicine. One was to establish
a chair of clinical science in JCSMR with the department located
in the Canberra Community Hospital where scientists and clinicians
could work together. It was hoped that there would be considerable
liaison between those working in the main JCSMR building and those
working in the hospital. With Ennor's support the establishment
of this department was approved by both university council and
hospital authorities, and the first professor of clinical science
was appointed in 1966.

During the rapid expansion of the Australian National University
in the sixties, Ennor became one of the main-protagonists of a
research school of chemistry, although he was strongly opposed
to a rapid multiplication of research schools. At this time the
university still had only its four original research schools-JCSMR,
Physical Sciences, Pacific Studies, and Social Sciences-but had
in 1960 become amalgamated with Canberra University College which
ultimately became the School of General Studies. Chemistry at
that time was largely confined to the department of medical chemistry
in the JCSMR, although with the establishment of a faculty of
science in the School of General Studies, an undergraduate department
of chemistry was formed. A strong proposal for a research school
of biological sciences was also put forward and supported by the
Australian Academy of Science. There was, therefore, keen competition
at the time for a major longterm development in the university.
Ennor had, however, obtained the interest of three of Australia's
leading chemists then residing in the United Kingdom-A. J. Birch,
D. P. Craig and R. S. (later Sir Ronald) Nyholm.
A proposal based on the return of these three chemists, or at
least two of them, made the chemistry project very attractive
and in 1965 council approved the establishment of a research school
of chemistry.

After he became head of JCSMR in 1957, Ennor also took an active
interest in national activities outside the university. He played
a leading role in the establishment of the National Heart Foundation.
This activity brought him into close contact with clinicians,
especially those interested in cardiovascular disease, and with
leaders in the commercial world. Ennor was elected chairman of
the first national conference to establish the National Heart
Foundation of Australia . This was held in the Council Room of
the Australian National University on 23 February 1959. It was
attended by 25 distinguished representatives from all States of
the Commonwealth and, by special invitation, Sir Alan Taylor,
representing the R. T. Hall Trustees, and Councillor W. J. (later
Sir William) Kilpatrick, chairman of the then recent Cancer Society
campaign in Victoria. It was at this conference, formally opened
by the prime minister, the Right Honourable R. G. Menzies,
and presided over by Ennor, that the formal motion establishing
the National Heart Foundation of Australia was carried. Dr Kempson
(later Sir Kempson) Maddox, with the R. T. Hall Trustees, had
earlier put forward the idea of a foundation for the prevention
and better management of heart disease in this country; at the
time he was president of the Cardiac Society of Australia and
New Zealand. The Foundation decided to launch a national appeal
with Councillor Kilpatrick as National Appeal Chairman. Sir William
Kilpatrick writes:

...such consistent action by Sir Hugh and other scientific and
medical leaders on television, radio, and other media was a major
factor in attaining £2 5 million for the National Heart Foundation
to carry out its programme.

On 14July 1960, the inaugural meeting of theNational Medical and
Scientific Advisory Committee was held with Ennor as chairman.
Those who were present at this meeting, which continued for three
long and tiring days, will always remember the skill with which
Ennor conducted this important meeting which set the high standards
adopted by the Foundation. On Ennor's retirement from this position
in March 1967, the incoming chairman, Professor (later Sir John)
Loewenthal, commented on 'the outstanding contribution which Sir
Hugh Ennor had made to the successful functioning of the committee
as its foundation chairman'. He reminded the members that 'the
committee had laid down a very successful pattern of operation
and all of the committee's work had been marked by the greatest
goodwill and enthusiasm on the part of its members'. This, he
said, was a tribute to the personality and capacities of Sir Hugh.

Ennor continuously served the Foundation as a member of the executive
committee from 1959 to 1967, member at large from 1961, director
from 1964 to 1967, and as president in 1966-67. Sir William Kilpatrick
writes:

Having served continuously with him for some 18 years at the Foundation,
I cannot speak too highly of his dedication to, and brilliant
handling of, its affairs throughout that period.

In the sixties Ennor also played an active role in the establishment
of the Science and Industry Forum of the Australian Academy of
Science. Having been elected to fellowship of the Academy in 1954,
he served on Council from 1962 to 1967 and was treasurer from
1963 to 1967. During 1963 the Council of the Academy saw a need
to improve the Academy's public relations with various groups
of people. At Ennor's suggestion, the officers met on several
occasions for dinner with different small groups of people prominent
in the industrial and commercial life of the country, many of
them known personally to Ennor. This led to a symposium on 'Scientific
and Technological Research in Relation to the Development of Australian
Industry' at the annual general meeting in 1964, at which there
were discussions, both formal and informal, between fellows and
about thirty prominent industrialists. At the concluding dinner,
Sir Ian McLennan suggested
that some sort of joint organization might be set up to arrange
similar discussions in the future. Other informal discussions
with groups of business people were held at dinner meetings by
the Sydney and Adelaide groups of fellows respectively.

In August 1964 the then president, Sir Thomas Cherry,
called together a small representative group of fellows and industrialists
to discuss the possibility of such a joint organization. As an
outcome a small steering group consisting of Sir Archibald Glenn,
Mr D. L. Hegland, Sir Henry Somerset, Sir Thomas Cherry, Sir Hugh
Ennor, and Dr (later Sir Ian) Wark
was set up to develop the project further. On the recommendation
of this group an Interim Industrial Liaison Committee was called
together and was subsequently expanded into the Science and Industry
Forum which held its first meeting in March 1967. The Forum has
become an important part of the Academy's continuing activities
and Ennor's influence in the early stages was crucial to its development.

During the early sixties Ennor served on many other committees
among which were the Selection Committee for Natural Sciences
of the Nuffield Foundation, the Advisory Committee of the Ciba
Foundation, and the Committee of the Australian Universities Commission
(the Martin Committee) that reported on the future of tertiary
education in 1964.

By the end of 1966 Ennor had crowded a great deal into the decade
that had begun in 1957 with his appointment as head of the John
Curtin School. During this time he had a great many friends in
all walks of life-academics, diplomats, politicians, public servants,
and people in the business and professional worlds. His success
in administration led him to devote more and more of his time
to this field and consequently less and less to his work in the
laboratory. By 1966 the time was approaching when he had to decide
between devoting more of his time to biochemistry and giving up
laboratory work altogether. He really had little option but to
devote his future to full-time administration, for he had become
a very experienced and successful administrator in the academic
world.

In the events of the latter half of 1966, Ennor decided to quit
the academic life and to embark on a new venture. The opportunity
arose for him to accept the position of permanent head of the
Department of Education and Science, a newly established department
in the Commonwealth Public Service. He served in this position
from its creation at the beginning of 1967 until the separation
of the science function as a department in its own right at the
end of 1972. His selection as a non-public servant was, at the
time, a rare event. It reflected the wish of the Holt government
to appoint a distinguished academic administrator to develop the
new department. The creation of a Commonwealth department in education
and science was itself a significant development in Commonwealth/State
relations in education, which was then and continues to be primarily
a State responsibility. Ennor became a member of the Directors-General
Conference and of the standing committee to the Australian Education
Council.

As an experienced academic administrator Ennor found the transition
to public administration not without its difficulties. The administrative
organization established for the new department mirrored the classical
hierarchical model of public service departments which was far
removed from the models of administration with which he had been
familiar in universities. He advocated the infusion of outside
blood into the Commonwealth service, including short-term appointment
and contracted services, and had limited success in following
this approach within his own department.

Ennor's responsibilities in education to that time had been concentrated
in the tertiary area, including his membership of the committee
on the future of tertiary education in Australia, the Martin Committee,
which reported in August 1964. However, as head of the new department
his public comments were directed primarily at the schools level.
His first major speech, the Eleventh Theodore Fink Memorial Lecture
given on 3 October 1961, was titled 'Some Problems of Educational
Research in Australia'. In it Ennor was highly critical of what
he regarded as Australia's poor performance in educational research
in contrast to many other areas of human activity, including research
in which Australia had made her mark on the world scene:

The educational scene stands out as one in which we seem to have
failed; failed in the sense that we do not appear to be able to
delineate the problems; let alone ascribe priorities to them;
let alone provide solutions to them.

The speech drew a sharp reaction from many senior educators, but
Ennor did not stop at criticisms about lack of priorities and
wasteful use of resources. In that speech he advocated the establishment
of a representative committee to survey the situation, determine
priorities, and indicate how they might be investigated. The outcome
was a representative meeting of experienced people, including
teachers, which led to the establishment of the ERDC-the Educational
Research and Development Committee.

The period 1967-72 saw a substantial expansion of Commonwealth
activities in education and also in science. Increases in direct
Commonwealth expenditure were dramatic, although not on the scale
which developed subsequently during the Whitlam administration.
Some of the more significant Commonwealth initiatives in education
during this period were: secondary school libraries programme;
reports on academic salaries and on levels and nomenclature of
awards in advanced education; development of the tertiary entrance
examination; introduction of per capita grants to non-government
schools and shared capital grants for government and non-government
schools in the States; acceptance of direct responsibility for
the education services in the ACT and the NT; establishment of
the Commonwealth Teaching Service.

Ennor's public utterances emphasized the need for qualitative
rather than quantitative improvement in education at the schools
level. During this period the Commonwealth supported various groups
working on the preparation of an up-to-date secondary science
curriculum and the development of social science curricula. The
Academy of Science had set the example with The Web of Life.
The Asian languages and cultures exercise was a substantial
effort in a particular area of growing relevance to Australians.
All of these activities involved close cooperation between Commonwealth
and State ministers and their departments, with support from academics.

In exercising its responsibilities for the provision of education
services in the two mainland Territories, the new department sought
to develop policies in tune with local requirements and arising
from comprehensive expert enquiry and discussion. The creation
of the Commonwealth Teaching Service was preceded by the Radford/Neale
enquiry into the desirable organization, career, and salary structure
for such a service. The Darwin Community College was created following
the recommendations of a special committee of enquiry, and a committee
drawn from the local community was commissioned to advise on the
restructuring of the government secondary schools system in the
ACT.

1972 saw the culmination of the pressure from highly organized
groups who were seeking substantially increased Commonwealth grants
for education at the schools level. Ennor, in opening the 26th
Annual Conference of the Australian Council of State School Organizations
on 16 October 1972, argued against those who advocated reduced
class sizes. He warned that research throughout the world had
not indicated any optimum no. for a class size. He emphasized
the need for the development of a strong element of professionalism
within the various teacher organizations. He argued that:

not only should any demand for reduction in class sizes be based
on some objective assessment, but also that those who make the
demands should be aware of the cost of those demands.

This attitude reflected Ennor's belief that those who advocated
substantially increased expenditure on education should back up
their demands with argument and evidence. He emphasized too the
role of government in determining priorities among various proposals.

Given Ennor's background and known attitudes, it was to be expected
that the 'and Science' element of the new department would receive
special attention. The department had been created from the education
division of the Prime Minister's Department and its involvement
in science during that period had been notable primarily for the
establishment of the Australian Research Grants Committee and
for annual grants such as that to the Academy of Science. During
the period from 1967 to 1972 responsibilities in the science area
led first to the establishment of a branch and later of a division
within the department. Significant developments with which Ennor
had a close personal association were the negotiations in 1967
leading to the construction of the Anglo-Australian telescope;
the introduction of project SCORE-the Survey and Comparison of
Research Expenditure covering all sections of the economy which
was further developed following the creation of the Department
of Science in 1972; the establishment of and administrative support
for the Metric Conversion Board in 1970; and the first Advisory
Committee on Science and Technology which was proposed in 1972
to advise on the alignment of civil science and technology to
national objectives. In 1968 the US/Australian agreement for scientific
and technological cooperation was signed, with the Department
of Education and Science as the Australian executive agency. This
was the first of a no. of related measures taken subsequently
which reflected Ennor's strong personal conviction about the need
for and the national benefits to flow from such arrangements.

When the Whitlam Government decided to establish separate departments
for education and for science, Ennor chose to go to science and
took up that appointment from the beginning of 1973. Although
the problems of a recently created department were not new to
Ennor, those which he incurred through the Department of Science
were to weigh heavily on him for the whole five years during which
he was the permanent head. It was typical of him that, right up
to the day of his official retirement, which turned out to be
less than a week before his untimely death, he was still grappling
with difficulties which he wanted resolved before his successor
took over-and that while critically ill in hospital. The embryonic
Department of Science was not an organization for which anyone
could have accepted responsibility with cheerful optimism. But
the magnitude and scope of the difficulties later to emerge were
not anticipated.

It was recognized at the outset that the return to power of the
Labor Government after a lapse of 23 years would pose problems
for both the ministry and the administrative machine, but their
extent and effect were not foreseen. The government wanted action
and it wanted action quickly. The Department of Science was poorly
equipped to respond. It had no management services of its own;
it had minimal policy development resource; it inherited overnight
a set of agencies which each had problems peculiar to itself that
it looked to a central departmental organization to tackle, and
in the case of the Department of Science that central organization
was virtually non-existent.

The first 12 months in the life of the department were well nigh
impossible ones for Ennor. It took that long to establish some
sort of organization and some form of coherence in action. However
it took much longer to get the whole machine to work efficiently
and effectively. For many months the department had to depend
for its chief management and administrative responsibilities entirely
on support from the Department of Education, to which the management
services branch of the erstwhile Department of Education and Science
had been transferred en bloc; it also had to depend on
the departments of the Attorney-General, Capital Territory, and
Supply and Customs for administrative support for the Patent Office,
the Bureau of Meteorology, the Antarctic Division, and the Analytical
Laboratories respectively. Whilst this fragmentation was difficult
for all involved, it was particularly hard on the permanent head
of the Department of Science.

Ennor saw the new department as having roles both in the formulation
of policy proposals and in the implementation of policies for
science and technology. Those roles would not be exclusive
and many other agencies would be involved. In particular he wanted
to forge strong relationships with the Science Council that the
government intended to establish. He saw that body as chief adviser
on priorities, particularly in the field of 'big science' where
the costs involved could run into millions of dollars. He had
grave doubts that science expenditures could maintain the growth
rates current at the time, and he worried about escalating costs,
particularly those attributable to the increasing sophistication
of instrumentation and facilities. He was concerned that the right
institutional arrangements should be made for expensive new capital
items and particularly that opportunities for bilateral or multi-partite
international collaboration should be explored; he felt that,
as a general rule, equipment serving a national purpose should
be available as a national, rather than as an establishment-exclusive,
facility.

Ennor became a member of the Anglo-Australian Telescope Board
on 4 May 1973 and he was reappointed for a further term on 27
May 1976. His initial appointment led to a perceptible shift in
the Australian attitude to the question of who would be responsible
forday-to-day management and operation of the new telescope. Previously
the Australian view had tended to favour the Australian National
University in this role, as opposed to the UK view that the Board
should effect strictly binational arrangements for the purpose.
That Ennor should find himself closely in agreement with the British
attitude was inevitable, given that he started with the views
about multinational arrangements and national facilities attributed
to him earlier. In the end, it was the British view that prevailed
but not before Ennor had found himself at odds with some of his
colleagues who were very strongly committed to the other option.

Ennor made notable contributions to the Board's work. Being also
head of the Australian executive agency, viz., the Department
of Science, he was able to give the best advice on many organizational
and administrative matters. He took a deep personal interest in
instrumentation and strove to assist the Board to equip the telescope
with the range of facilities necessary to guarantee its use to
full advantage. Ennor enjoyed his commitment to the Anglo-Australian
telescope but the controversy over management and operation left
some scars.

At 30 June 1973, the central office of the Department of Science
consisted of a policy division with 18 positions occupied out
of 37 allowed, a general services division with 26 positions occupied
out of 34 allowed, and a management services branch with no positions
occupied out of 97 approved. Most of the vacancies were filled
over the following 12 months; the lengthy processes of recruitment
on this scale however diverted a substantial fraction of the comparatively
scarce resources available away from policy formulation.

It was a blow to Ennor when the Advisory Committee on Science
and Technology which had been established by Prime Minister McMahon
and had held its first meeting on 24 October 1972 was dissolved
by the Minister for Science in February 1973. The Labor Government's
interim Australian Science and Technology Council was not convened
as a replacement till May 1975. During the interregnum Ennor worried
continually that major policy issues in science and technology
were not being considered. He was especially concerned that no
effective action was being taken on initiatives proposed for marine
science and astronomy. However he was reluctant to have the department
make other arrangements to have these subjects addressed since
he believed that such action would pre-empt the role which he
judged proper for a Science Council.

The department and, more particularly, its central office had
little chance to settle down till near the end of 1975. In the
meantime the addition of various new responsibilities and the
removal of others did not make life any more comfortable for Ennor.
He had been unable to provide adequate resource in May 1973 to
match the then Minister's newly conferred responsibility for coordinating
the establishment of consumer standards. The transfer to the Department
of Health of the task of measuring radioactivity from fallout
provided some relief-but not till after work arising from the
series of nuclear tests by the French in 1973 had been completed.
When the council of the Australian Institute of Marine Science
appointed the first group of officers to its own staff departmental
support for the Institute was no longer required, but that commitment
was balanced by the new one of servicing the interim council of
the Australian Biological Resources Study.

An OECD review of Australian scientific and technological activities
was undertaken early in 1974 at the request of the then Minister.
This was a complex task and represented a big load for the department.
Unlike similar reviews in other countries, this one had minimal
support from the OECD Secretariat, and the shortfall had to be
made good by the department. Ennor was personally involved in
much of the work associated with the review, including leading
an Australian delegation at a formal meeting of the OECD Committee
for Scientific and Technological Policy convened to exchange views
on the content of the draft review report.

In January 1915 the Space Projects Branch of the department came
into being through transfer of the American Projects Branch of
the Department of Manufacturing Industry; the latter had assumed
responsibility for the branch when the Department of Supply had
been abolished. The Balloon Launching Station at Mildura came
with the branch. Also in January 1975 the Government issued a
white paper: Science and Technology in the Service of Society-The
Framework for Australian Government Planning. The intended
machinery included a ministerial committee on science and technology,
an Australian Science and Technology Forum and a continuing Department
of Science. An interim ASTEC held its first meeting at the end
of May 1975.

On 6 June 1975 the name of the department was changed to that
of Science and Consumer Affairs. Shortly afterwards the Patent
Office reverted to the Attorney-General's department. It would
be fair to say that Ennor was not relaxed about the consumer affairs
commitment. However, he accepted it cheerfully enough, and was
determined to have his new department undertake its assigned tasks
with dedication and effectiveness. An interim Commission on Consumer
Standards had been established in October 1973 and had been assisted
to some extent since that time by the department through the work
of the Analytical Laboratories. In April 1974 the interim commission
made recommendations concerning a permanent body to succeed it
but, in the event, the proposals it developed never did come to
fruition.

With the change to a Department of Science and Consumer Affairs,
a consumer standards branch was established in the general services
division and a consumer protection division was set up in the
department by transfer of staff from the Trade Practices Commission.
Once again Ennor found his limited resources well over-stretched.
The consumer standards branch had to be manned by staff transferred
temporarily from elsewhere in the department and the consumer
protection division found itself tasked well beyond the capacity
of the workforce which it brought with it. Nevertheless Ennor
had the department produce some potentially useful results-price
surveys, a guide to consumer rights and to sources of advice and
information, and a consumers' magazine. After the general election
in December 1975, 'Consumer Affairs' was removed from the purview
of the department.

There was one incident arising out of the budget brought down
by the government in 1975 that should be specially mentioned.
In that budget funds for the Australian Research Grants Committee
suffered a massive cut. The scientific community was greatly upset
and, in some quarters, the Department of Science was blamed. Allegations
amounting to charges of incompetence or indolence on the part
of departmental officers were published in Search. The
department was not only not responsible but rather had tried vainly
to avert the potential disaster. Nevertheless, strict adherence
to public service standards of propriety inhibited Ennor from
revealing publicly exactly what had happened. It is nevertheless
a matter of history that, subsequently, steps were taken by the
government of the day to partly redress the situation.

The problems which Ennor had as a result of the demands of government
were exacerbated by problems internal to the department. The latter
reached something of a climax in publicity arising through the
hearings of the Royal Commission on Australian Government Administration.
It would be inappropriate to make judgments about respective rights
and wrongs. What can be said is that Ennor always looked for the
highest standards of personal and professional performance, and
his make-up would not let him accept anything which he judged
to be less.

The Royal Commission's Science Task Force rejected the concept
of a minister and department of science. Ennor, however, firmly
believed that a department of science is a necessary concomitant
of a Science Council and he issued a firmly worded and detailed
rebuttal of the Science Task Force report. The Royal Commission
itself saw a need for a ministerial focus for CSIRO and general
science policy and posed the alternatives of a group concentrated
in the Cabinet office and working to the prime minister or of
a minister for science with a more traditional department, associated
with a ministerial committee on science and ASTEC. After the elections
of December 1975, an Administrative Review Committee was established
to recommend on administrative savings that might be achievable.
Despite forecasts in the press to the contrary, the Department
of Science was not abolished. It is a fair presumption that the
committee was satisfied with what it found out about the department,
its central office, and its top management with Ennor in charge.

During 1976 and 1977 the department received less adverse publicity.
Ennor found himself as busy as ever. He was personally very much
involved in a major review of astronomical facilities in Australia
which had been commissioned by the government. Under his chairmanship,
an interdepartmental committee, supported by a departmental secretariat
and an expert group of astronomers, studied the subject in great
depth and reported its findings in September 1977.

Meanwhile Ennor had also had to find staff from the central office
to comprise a secretariat for a committee of inquiry that had
been set up to examine the operations of the Bureau of Meteorology.
The committee based its work in part on a substantial input from
the department arising through the preparation and publication
of a green paper on meteorology and analyses of over 300 responses
from all sectors of the community.

Concurrently the department was engaged in a commitment of large
proportions and long duration which stemmed from comprehensive
review of Australian Antarctic operations and from development
of future Antarctic policy. That task too had been initiated through
a green paper drafted by the department; it entailed extensive
consultations with universities and other bodies as well as protracted
deliberations by an interdepartmental committee and a set of working
parties. During the same period, yet another interdepartmental
group, chaired by the Department of Science, was looking at issues
arising from international collaboration in science and technology,
and endeavouring to formulate a draft policy on the subject for
consideration by government.

A lesser man might well have been overwhelmed by the magnitude
of these tasks, given the small organization which Ennor had at
his disposal. In more private moments he would occasionally express
his concern and perhaps a little pessimism-but that was rare.
Both in public and on the job he always exuded confidence and
optimism. And he was buoyed up by some notable successes achieved
under his leadership. The US/Australia Agreement for Scientific
and Technical Cooperation has been progressively developed by
the department as an excellent vehicle for promoting collaboration
that, in its absence, could not occur. Against the run of the
economic tide, the government accepted the department's arguments
in the 1977-78 budget context for more resources for the Antarctic
Division, and for the establishment of a LANDSAT receiving/processing
facility in Australia. These were notable achievements and a source
of great satisfaction to Ennor in his final year.

We have seen that in a career of 40 years since he graduated from
the University of Melbourne in 1937, Ennor spent the first 30
years as a biochemist in medical research institutes. By the end
of this time, towards the end of 1966, he had been drawn more
and more into university administration and further and further
away from his biochemical laboratory. He found himself at a crossroads
and realized that it would not be easy to go into reverse. Most
scientists who have been drawn away from the laboratory for a
few years into academic administration find it difficult to return
to the bench; they usually accept full-time administrative positions
and this was so with Ennor. He was, I am sure, happiest in the
academic world, but during the last decade of his life he nevertheless
gave in full measure his skills and energy to public administration,
however hard the road ahead sometimes appeared. He will be remembered
by his colleagues in university and public service for his integrity
and dedication, and for the affection, kindliness and courtesy
which he unfailingly bestowed on the many good friends he had
among them.

Ennor was honoured for his services to science and medicine by
election to the fellowship of the Royal Australian Chemical Institute
in 1951 and of the Australian Academy of Science in 1954, by the
award of the degree of Doctor of Science honoris causa of
the University of New South Wales in 1968 and of the degree of
Doctor of Medicine honoris causa of Monash University in
1969. He was created CBE in 1963 and a Knight Bachelor in 1965.

I first met Hugh Ennor towards the end of the war when he visited
the Chemical Warfare Establishment in England, but it was after
the war, early in 1946, that I first came to know the Ennors.
Hugh had married Violet Argall in 1939 and in 1946 he came to
Oxford with his wife Vi and their two young children, Janice and
Phillip, to take up his Wellcome Foundation fellowship in the
department of biochemistry. They shared a house with Dr (later
Professor) David Sinclair and his wife in North Oxford not far
from where I lived with my family. My wife and I have clear memories
of the austerity of those early post-war years when on a cold
bleak Sunday afternoon the Ennors came to tea, as was the custom
in Oxford. Janice was 5 and Phillip 3, roughly the same age as
our three children. There began on that day a close family friendship
which has remained for over 30 years. Although Hugh and I may
not have always agreed in those 30 years, I always knew that beneath
his somewhat forthright manner was a genuine feeling of warmth
for his numerous friends in all walks of life.

In private life Hugh loved his role as handyman around the Ennor
home in Canberra's Red Hill. In his later years he was especially
interested in wrought-ironwork and got much pleasure from designing
and welding the ironwork around his home. Whenever I went to the
local hardware shop early on a Saturday morning, I usually met
Hugh browsing, always smiling and happy in such circumstances
and always enthusiastic about some new gadget or some new material
that he had found. All, and over the years there must have been
a very great many, who enjoyed the hospitality of the Ennors in
their home will have fond memories of the warmth of their friendship.
Hugh loved being with his friends and as host at dinner he was
always good company, full of fun and good humour.

10 October 1977, the 65th anniversary of his birth, was to be
Hugh's day of retirement to which he had looked forward so that
he could spend more time on his hobbies, especially landscape
painting of which he became fond as a means of relaxation in his
later years. His many friends had organized a dinner in his honour,
a dinner which Hugh would have enjoyed to the full. However, a
recent illness forced his return to hospital; he spent his birthday
in the intensive care ward and he died a few days later on 14
October 1977. That he should be deprived of the opportunity to
do in retirement the many things he had planned is a matter of
the greatest regret to all those who appreciate the heavy load
he bore, especially during the last five years of his life. He
is survived by Lady Ennor, his two children, Janice and Phillip,
and his four grandchildren.

Emeritus Professor Frederick Colin Courtice
was director of the Kanematsu Memorial Institute of Pathology,
1948-58; Professor of Experimental Pathology in the John Curtin
School of Medical Research of the Australian National University,
1958-74, and director of the John Curtin School and Howard Florey
Professor of Medical Research, 1974-76. He was elected to the
Academy in 1954, served on Council, 1965-66, and was vice-president,
1965-66.

This memoir was originally published in Records of the Australian
Academy of Science, vol. 4, no. 1, Canberra, Australia,
1978.